9 research outputs found
Biofield Therapies: Helpful or Full of Hype? A Best Evidence Synthesis
Biofield therapies (such as Reiki, therapeutic touch, and healing touch) are complementary medicine modalities that remain controversial and are utilized by a significant number of patients, with little information regarding their efficacy.
This systematic review examines 66 clinical studies with a variety of biofield therapies in different patient populations.
We conducted a quality assessment as well as a best evidence synthesis approach to examine evidence for biofield therapies in relevant outcomes for different clinical populations.
Studies overall are of medium quality, and generally meet minimum standards for validity of inferences. Biofield therapies show strong evidence for reducing pain intensity in pain populations, and moderate evidence for reducing pain intensity hospitalized and cancer populations. There is moderate evidence for decreasing negative behavioral symptoms in dementia and moderate evidence for decreasing anxiety for hospitalized populations. There is equivocal evidence for biofield therapies' effects on fatigue and quality of life for cancer patients, as well as for comprehensive pain outcomes and affect in pain patients, and for decreasing anxiety in cardiovascular patients.
There is a need for further high-quality studies in this area. Implications and future research directions are discussed
Developing “My Asthma Diary”: a process exemplar of a patient-driven arts-based knowledge translation tool
Isolation, X location and activity of the marsupial homologue of SLC16A2, an XIST-flanking gene in eutherian mammals
The Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management Programme in Kindergartens: Effects of a Universal Preventive Effort
Robust Detection of Rare Species Using Environmental DNA: The Importance of Primer Specificity
Environmental DNA (eDNA) is being rapidly adopted as a tool to detect rare animals. Quantitative PCR (qPCR) using probe-based chemistries may represent a particularly powerful tool because of the method’s sensitivity, specificity, and potential to quantify target DNA. However, there has been little work understanding the performance of these assays in the presence of closely related, sympatric taxa. If related species cause any cross-amplification or interference, false positives and negatives may be generated. These errors can be disastrous if false positives lead to overestimate the abundance of an endangered species or if false negatives prevent detection of an invasive species. In this study we test factors that influence the specificity and sensitivity of TaqMan MGB assays using co-occurring, closely related brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and bull trout (S. confluentus) as a case study. We found qPCR to be substantially more sensitive than traditional PCR, with a high probability of detection at concentrations as low as 0.5 target copies/µl. We also found that number and placement of base pair mismatches between the Taqman MGB assay and non-target templates was important to target specificity, and that specificity was most influenced by base pair mismatches in the primers, rather than in the probe. We found that insufficient specificity can result in both false positive and false negative results, particularly in the presence of abundant related species. Our results highlight the utility of qPCR as a highly sensitive eDNA tool, and underscore the importance of careful assay design
